Are Mobile Homes the answer?

[Deleted User]

PasturesNew wrote: »

The new rules just protect residents from crooks. Where I lived, one of the neighbours was trying to sell her unit and every time she introduced the potential buyers to the site owner (site owners often have to meet/approve new owners) the site owner would persuade the buyers to buy one of her mobile homes instead of the one they'd originally wanted.

There's also intimidation. I was threatened with immediate eviction once because I had a small water leak from the cistern. I fixed that by turning the water off except when I wanted to use a tap or flush the loo

The site owner would just randomly bang on your door and threaten you with eviction when she thought the site rules had been broken, even when they hadn't.

I was also threatened with eviction for having a bf "live with me". He wasn't living with me (it was banned, site was for single females and married couples only, no living together); he lived with his mum, he just used to stay 5 nights/week. Each morning he'd go home, get changed for work, have his breakfast with his mum, go to work, go home for his tea with his mum, get changed, then come to see me. But the site owner threatened me with eviction (by banging on my door and having a go). He had absolutely nothing at my place, not even a toothbrush or spare socks ... and his mum did all his cooking, cleaning, meals, washing etc at his home.

only an unhinged site owner would act in this way,and i have never ever heard of any site being for married couple/single females only !!!!!!
our site manager lives with HIS husband
and there is now a new property tribunal in place to referee disputes between owners and tenants
things have moved on,not that they were ever that bad

ging84

I remember around 25 years ago i still met people who lived in mobile homes, now they have been largely phased out as living standards have improved, i think many of the sites are probably now council estates, with much the same sort of people living in them.

I don't see them making a return, unless there is some sort of change in the law that would allow permanent caravans sites setup where housing would not be allowed, and not having to spend a fortune on infrastructure for them

PasturesNew

woodbine wrote: »

there are at least 2 lenders who specialise in park home financing(roy scotlarch being the one that comes to mind)

Park home financing isn't a mortgage though. There've always been lenders prepared to lend on mobile homes, but the small print means it's a personal loan, not a mortgage.

When you lose your job you still have to pay your finance, there's never any benefits to cover that. It used to be that after 9 months there'd be some help with mortgages, now it's 3 months. Not so for personal loans. It's a big consideration.

PasturesNew

grizzly1911 wrote: »

What is included in the rental as it seems low?

I had mine in about 1988, rent was £20/week. It then went up annually by what seemed about 10% at the time.

Using an online calculator, that £20/week then is now equivalent to £45-55/week.

It included water and communal gardening.

I had to buy gas bottles from the site owner only - at the price she dictated.
Electricity was on a meter behind the caravan, that took 50p pieces.

We all had to go "cap in hand" every fortnight on a Saturday within a 2 hour timeslot to pay our rent in cash and have our rent book signed.

Loughton_Monkey

PasturesNew wrote: »

.....When you lose your job you still have to pay your finance, there's never any benefits to cover that. It used to be that after 9 months there'd be some help with mortgages, now it's 3 months. Not so for personal loans. It's a big consideration.

In a context like yours, maybe.

But quite frankly, 13 years of Blair/Brown stamped free housing firmly onto the benefits map. Unless something is done to staunch this crippling cost, it can only get worse due to an almost infinite demand.

Post war, council housing (subsidised, but tenants still had to pay) was often satisfied by "prefabs". Cheaply built. Smaller gardens than most (but quite large by today's standards). Many in the village in which I was born are still there, with a brick skin shell around them.

So I seriously see no problem in satisfying current demand with some sort of mobile home/prefab. You see prefabs sold at Ideal Home Exhibitions. Quite cheap and actually quite luxurious inside. But social housing should be adequate, not luxurious. Otherwise (as now) there is no incentive whatsoever to do better.

grizzly1911

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

In a context like yours, maybe.

But quite frankly, 13 years of Blair/Brown stamped free housing firmly onto the benefits map. Unless something is done to staunch this crippling cost, it can only get worse due to an almost infinite demand.

Post war, council housing (subsidised, but tenants still had to pay) was often satisfied by "prefabs". Cheaply built. Smaller gardens than most (but quite large by today's standards). Many in the village in which I was born are still there, with a brick skin shell around them.

So I seriously see no problem in satisfying current demand with some sort of mobile home/prefab. You see prefabs sold at Ideal Home Exhibitions. Quite cheap and actually quite luxurious inside. But social housing should be adequate, not luxurious. Otherwise (as now) there is no incentive whatsoever to do better.

Another argument is that demand is out stripping supply of property available. Income inequality is growing, increased job security and prospects with increasing cost of basic living.

[Deleted User]

PasturesNew wrote: »

I had mine in about 1988, rent was £20/week. It then went up annually by what seemed about 10% at the time.

Using an online calculator, that £20/week then is now equivalent to £45-55/week.

It included water and communal gardening.

I had to buy gas bottles from the site owner only - at the price she dictated.
Electricity was on a meter behind the caravan, that took 50p pieces.

We all had to go "cap in hand" every fortnight on a Saturday within a 2 hour timeslot to pay our rent in cash and have our rent book signed.

25 years later our site fees are less than £30 a week inc water,and increases are limited by law(since 1983)to a max of RPI
On the majority of sites you can buy your lpg from who you like,and many sites now have natural gas,same for electricity
its seems you had a bad experience of living in a caravan which probably wasnt on a residential site but a holiday licenced site

[Deleted User]

PasturesNew wrote: »

Park home financing isn't a mortgage though. There've always been lenders prepared to lend on mobile homes, but the small print means it's a personal loan, not a mortgage.

When you lose your job you still have to pay your finance, there's never any benefits to cover that. It used to be that after 9 months there'd be some help with mortgages, now it's 3 months. Not so for personal loans. It's a big consideration.

the vast majority of park homes,and i`d venture to say 95% are purchased by people downsizing and using the equity they release to pay cash
site fees btw can be covered by housing benefit (exc the water element)

Loughton_Monkey

woodbine wrote: »

the vast majority of park homes,and i`d venture to say 95% are purchased by people downsizing and using the equity they release to pay cash
site fees btw can be covered by housing benefit (exc the water element)

That is my own conjecture, too. Furthermore, I think they tend to be those who made quite a few bob on their council house RTB.

..Which is why I raise it as a possibility. These people are 'happy' to live there. It is their choice. So those with even less choice (desperate for an affordable house) would presumably be comfortable as well. At far less cost to the taxpayer.

grizzly1911

woodbine wrote: »

the vast majority of park homes,and i`d venture to say 95% are purchased by people downsizing and using the equity they release to pay cash
site fees btw can be covered by housing benefit (exc the water element)

Is there any restriction on occupying the properties for 52 weeks a year or do they have to be vacated for a period each year?